So much talk about fighters, but don't we miss something?

[skypse]

Every couple of days there's a new post coming up regarding DEX based builds, STR based builds with TWF and how they can be viable, why Fighter is such a bad class since he has no class features or he has no skill points, etc.
First, I would like to say that despite the fact I am a wizard lover (before and during my Pathfinder experience eyes on Icewind Dales), I completely understand and acknowledge the thrill that a player has when he sees/imagines a gladiator screaming in pain while he delivers the final blow to his opponent, a mountain-dude wielding a big-ass sword wrecking havoc in a battle, Aragorn running like crazy inside every orc in freaking Mount Doom and even Legolas jumping around a mammoth-like creature pissing on whatever I was taught about physics in school.

HOWEVER

I am not posting this in order to duplicate already existing posts and optimization requests: I'm posting this in order to ask the more experienced and more knowledgeable players than me a specific question that will maybe help me and others understand a couple of more things in Pathfinder. Our subject of the day is "the maneuvers".

So, at a first glance, only a STR based build will be benefited more by the Combat Maneuvers in Pathfinder but in a closer look we find a couple of feats that either substitute STR for DEX (or other stats) and BAB for HD, making a maneuver-oriented build a possibility for a lot of classes but this is another discussion that we will try to have on another post.

From what I've read in this forum, Pathfinder has fcked up the whole grapple maneuver by involving roll after roll after roll after roll and making the whole system weird, complicated and difficult for a new (or even old) player to get used to. I've also seen a couple of builds regarding the Trip maneuver which seems to be the most reliable for some reason. But what about building a Fighter (since he is the one that is mostly targeted for his lack of choices other than full attack, wait, repeat), who will be using Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder, Disarm and Reposition? All those maneuvers seem very useful (to a newbie's eyes like me) and can produce a great deal of battlefield control so why isn't anyone using them? Why don't we see or read anything about Fighters and Barbarians focusing their feats and Rage powers around those maneuvers? I find it hard to believe that a 26-28 STR Barbie cannot push around 2-3 medium creatures to a corner, damaging them and placing them away from his archer/wizard/weak-target at the same time. At this point I should say that I am member of two campaigns running right now in these forums where I am building 2 characters (1 Ranger (only for the 6level feat)/Fighter and 1 Barbie) who will specialize in exactly that and see how it goes. I am not asking for optimization advice or guides or anything like that however. I genuinely would like to know your opinion as players because I would like to understand why people don't think this kind of builds can work. Thank you for your time and sorry for the long post.


TL;DR: Why noone builds around Combat Maneuvers when they can produce so much battlefield control and what's wrong with them?

[Doctor Awkward]

TL;DR: Why noone builds around Combat Maneuvers when they can produce so much battlefield control and what's wrong with them?

Because all combat maneuvers in Pathfinder are rolled against the CMB of the opponent, and are thus impossible to succeed at most of the time.

The choice is to build for combat maneuvers, which won't stop enemies from punching you in the face even if you succeed or building to do damage, which is guaranteed to stop enemies from punching you in the face.

It's not even an optimal choice. It's common sense.

[Turion]

Basically, because CMD for monsters scales faster than CMB for leveled humanoids. In general, unless you're fighting something that advances by class level, the enemy's CMD gets harder to match as CR increases, to the point of "why bother?"

Also, a lot of combat maneuvers just do not work in common mid-high level circumstances; you can't trip someone who's flying, for example.

[Geddy2112]

Magic just does it so much better. Why grapple one enemy when you can entange dozens. Magic can push or throw enemies, or simply take them over and use them. Combat maneuvers require being close and can generally only be used on 1-2 enemies at a time.

Also, it is generally easier to just kill an enemy than toy around with ineffective grapples, etc.

[Ilorin Lorati]

There are actually a rather large number of magic items in Pathfinder now that will mitigate the vast majority of the additional scaling of monsters CMD versus player CMB; the issue is that most of them only provide a bonus to one type of combat maneuver meaning you end up with mediocre generalists and passable specialists, not passable generalists and excellent specialists.

The combat maneuvers that can be used in place of an attack can be used to great effect if the player knows what they're doing, but most players that know what they're doing will gravitate towards casters that can still do it better 90% of the time.

[Fiery Diamond]

Not really relevant to the thread, but something that bugs me about the something you said:

Look at the highest rated answer providing the explanation of what "replace x for y" means. You used it backwards, much like the person who posted the question in the link. (http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute-x-for-y)

I don't really have enough system mastery to comment on maneuvers, unfortunately. It really seems like they just tried to streamline things without paying attention to the math, though.

[Kurald Galain]

what about building a Fighter (since he is the one that is mostly targeted for his lack of choices other than full attack, wait, repeat), who will be using Bull Rush, Overrun, Sunder, Disarm and Reposition?

Even before the issue of CMB scaling, the problem is that most of these maneuvers aren't that great in most situations. And since they're pretty situational, it's not generally worth getting feats or items for.

Bull Rush and Reposition are only useful if you can throw an enemy off a cliff or into a fire pit or something.

Overrun is about moving through an enemy, whereas in almost every situation it's easier to simply move around him.

Disarm doesn't work on anything that doesn't have weapons, and in most cases the enemy can simply pick up his weapon again.

And sunder, well, given how many hit points and how much hardness most weapons have, if you're capable of doing substantial damage to them, it's generally more useful doing it to the wielder instead.

Overall, a good way of making a maneuver build is using a reach weapon. If you try to trip or disarm someone from two squares away, he'll get an OA but can't actually take it. Then don't bother with bonuses to one maneuver, but go for generic to-hit bonuses (e.g. weapon focus instead of Improved Foo).

[Elricaltovilla]

You mean something like a Lore Warden Martial Master Fighter making use of the Whip Master line of feats to threaten out to 15' and drop trip and dirty trick maneuvers on everything? Cuz I've suggested that to people before.

Its still not that good though. Lack of flexibility is one issue, as is poor scaling on CMB, the limited nature of most combat maneuvers, feat investment,


Even before the issue of CMB scaling, the problem is that most of these maneuvers aren't that great in most situations. And since they're pretty situational, it's not generally worth getting feats or items for.

Bull Rush and Reposition are only useful if you can throw an enemy off a cliff or into a fire pit or something.



You actually can't reposition (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Reposition) someone off a cliff at all.

[Psyren]

Because all combat maneuvers in Pathfinder are rolled against the CMB of the opponent, and are thus impossible to succeed at most of the time.

The choice is to build for combat maneuvers, which won't stop enemies from punching you in the face even if you succeed or building to do damage, which is guaranteed to stop enemies from punching you in the face.

It's not even an optimal choice. It's common sense.

There aren't many feats that increase your damage though - that's more the realm of things like class features. This is doubly the case if you're a fighter. So you might as well learn a maneuver as a martial.

Also, it's generally only "impossible" if you ignore any and all bonus sources to a particular maneuver. Yes, if you're just relying on BAB + Str + Improved/Greater X, you're going to fail at most maneuvers, but the whole idea is to not just rely on those things.



You actually can't reposition (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Reposition) someone off a cliff at all.

There's a feat for that (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/tactical-reposition-combat)

[Elricaltovilla]

There's a feat for that (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/tactical-reposition-combat)

Not a point in favor of Reposition :smallwink:

[Arbane]

Because given the number of feats needed to be good at maneuvers, swording your enemies in the hitpoints is almost always a better use of time in a fight.

[Kurald Galain]

Because given the number of feats needed to be good at maneuvers, swording your enemies in the hitpoints is almost always a better use of time in a fight.

Yes. Well, tripping is viable to make a whole build around.

The other maneuvers, as I see it, are useful standby options; you don't really invest anything in them, but you can give them a try if the situation warrants it (primarily either at low level, or when you have a source of increased accuracy, or when you have a way of avoiding the OA).

For example, a nice trick for a magus is using Spell Combat to cast True Strike, then doing whatever maneuver you like at a +20 bonus. Sure, you'll eat an OA, but sometimes it's worth the risk.

[OldTrees1]

TL;DR: Why noone builds around Combat Maneuvers when they can produce so much battlefield control and what's wrong with them?

Because Combat Manuevers, while great, are costly in both 3E and Pathfinder. 3E had several really good feats (Improved Trip and Knockback being the most famous) to decrease the action economy cost. Pathfinder's weaker feats in general weakened such build concepts in addition to other factors mentioned in this thread.

Adding in feats that improve the Action Economy of Bullrush, Dirty Trick, Reposition, and Trip would be a good improvement. (or just improve the default)

[Psyren]

Quick and dirty fix #1 - consolidate the Improved/Greater version of every maneuver (available at the earlier level/BAB of the two), and consolidate the Quick/"extra" version (available at the earlier of those two.) So reposition for instance, would just need one feat that combines Imp. Reposition and Gr. Reposition, and one that combines Tactical and Quick.

Quick and dirty fix #2 - remove Combat Expertise and Int 13 as a requirement/tax for every maneuver's feat chain.

[Elxir_Breauer]

Another possible fix: use the 3.5 versions of the feats and governing rules, except they target the CMD instead of being opposed rolls. This, in addition to the other feats in PF that deal with maneuvers, should increase their viability by a considerable margin. Whether they're worth it then, I'm not sure, but certainly better choices than they currently are.

[Elricaltovilla]

Quick and dirty fix #1 - consolidate the Improved/Greater version of every maneuver (available at the earlier level/BAB of the two), and consolidate the Quick/"extra" version (available at the earlier of those two.) So reposition for instance, would just need one feat that combines Imp. Reposition and Gr. Reposition, and one that combines Tactical and Quick.

Quick and dirty fix #2 - remove Combat Expertise and Int 13 as a requirement/tax for every maneuver's feat chain.

Quick and dirty fix #3: combine quick and dirty fix #1 and #2

[OldTrees1]

Quick and dirty fix #3: combine quick and dirty fix #1 and #2

Quick and dirty fix #4:
Take fix #3 and change all "as a standard action" to "as a melee attack" to allow synergy with Full Attacks and AoOs.

Quick and dirty fix #5:
Take fix #4 and add feats that are "when X(hit, deal more than 10 damage, ...) you may do a free _specific combat manuever_" (like the Knockback and Knock-down feats).

[Psyren]

Quick and dirty fix #3: combine quick and dirty fix #1 and #2

I actually meant those as an "and" - not either/or :smalltongue:

[Secret Wizard]

The problem about builds about combat maneuvers is that they are monotone.

Dirty Fighter Half-Orc can end fights in one swing at higher levels when they can easily proc Dirty Trick Master, but all the way there, it's just too repetitive.

[skypse]

Magic can grapple. Ok I get this and I also get that grapple sux in pathfinder from a mechanics standpoint. The thing is however that, like Psyren said earlier, we have a lot of ways to increase the CMB for the maneuvers in general. There are archetypes, feats, items for this purpose just as there are things for almost every other purpose. Why spend my full attack action hitting with my sword and shield while I can get a free bull rush with EVERY shield bash I make? Instead of building my feat chain on having better damage, I build it on having better bull rush bonus and every time I get in the middle of the fight, I just start pushing people around since the bull rush in this case is not a standard action but a free one. High BAB + Speed = up to 5 or 6 shield attacks which can result in 5-6 free bull rush attempts.
I understand that magic is generally better at control and that mundane characters are generally better at hitting stuff until they stop existing, but why not do both? Why does EVERY fighter/barbarian/ranger/other martial class build HAVE TO revolve around power attack, furious focus, carugon smash, blah blah blah?

Overrun imho is one of the best maneuvers for a Barbarian or a Fighter in a fight with the BBEG. You go straight through the bodyguards, without provoking attacks, potentially damaging them and you are right in front of the BBEG's face. Now the BBEG's bodyguards will either run directly on you so that you don't rip the BBEG's face out, or they will ignore their leader/boss/master and attack your archer/rogue/wizard. I doubt they will do the second one. In 1 turn, with a full round action, you became the center of attention and the whole battlefield shifts on you because you know that they will come after you. Now your wizard can do whatever he wants from a safe distance while your archer is shooting 8-9 arrows per turn.
Ok I accept that it is not the "cheapest" option, or the one with the huge numbers, but a melee character can also be a "tool" inside the battlefield and not only a full attack-repeat pawn. We have archers for that.

[Ssalarn]

Because all combat maneuvers in Pathfinder are rolled against the CMB of the opponent, and are thus impossible to succeed at most of the time.



That's a commonly held and not strictly accurate opinion.

The main issue with the CMB/CMD system is the double-dipping of size increases. Size increases automatically incorporate a bonus to Str that exceeds the corresponding penalty to Dex, so you've already got a leg up there, but then a separate size bonus is added on top. On top of that, most maneuvers are capped at being useable only against creatures up to 2 size categories larger, and some of them have other limitations (trip, for example, doesn't work against creatures who are actively flying, or who have no legs).

All that being said, there's lots of ways to capitalize on combat maneuvers if you understand their strengths and limitations. In adventures like The Ruby Phoenix Tournament where the bulk of your opponents are medium to large weapon-wielding humanoids, a maneuver expert rocks socks. Improved/Greater Disarm or Sunder, Bull Rush, etc. can turn difficult encounters into cakewalks. Maneuver experts can also be kept viable with appropriate buffs, particularly size increasing ones. A Fighter with enlarge person and the corresponding feats can reliably execute maneuvers against creatures up to size gargantuan; if he or an ally has techniques or equipment that can ground a flying creature, he can even use trip fairly reliably, even into later levels.

There are also some maneuvers and builds that can have a severe impact on the battlefield; the Dirty Fighter archetype combined with the Dirty Trick Master feat can lay down wicked battlefield control while focusing on a maneuver that doesn't have any size differential restrictions, particularly when combined with a good reach weapon.

[Doctor Awkward]

In adventures like The Ruby Phoenix Tournament where the bulk of your opponents are medium to large weapon-wielding humanoids, a maneuver expert rocks socks. Improved/Greater Disarm or Sunder, Bull Rush, etc. can turn difficult encounters into cakewalks. Maneuver experts can also be kept viable with appropriate buffs, particularly size increasing ones. A Fighter with enlarge person and the corresponding feats can reliably execute maneuvers against creatures up to size gargantuan; if he or an ally has techniques or equipment that can ground a flying creature, he can even use trip fairly reliably, even into later levels.

There are also some maneuvers and builds that can have a severe impact on the battlefield; the Dirty Fighter archetype combined with the Dirty Trick Master feat can lay down wicked battlefield control while focusing on a maneuver that doesn't have any size differential restrictions, particularly when combined with a good reach weapon.

You realize that maneuver specialists succeeding only with the express assistance of his allies or during encounters that play directly into their specific build strength is far from a point in their favor, yes?

[Spore]

My DM hated our polearm wielding trip specialist fighter so much because his combat style was simplistic and extremely boring. If a fighter needs to deal decent damage while concentrating on a single maneuver and weapon that suits this maneuver, he can HARDLY have anything else. You take an 11th level fighter and most of his feats were spent on his favored tactics, intimidation and trip. While this is fun for some time; after almost a year facing with the same tactics over and over again, the tedious part took over. (Yes, these are three things a character is decently good at, but for a sorcerer this would've been three spells: Fear, Toppling Magic Missile, [insert well written evocation damage spell])

If the encounter had something trippable (and this build tripped giant demon spiders with high trip CMD) or something not immune to fear, the combat was won in 2 rounds flat. If the enemy was not in this way, the fighter had serious problems (up until a mindless collosal homebrew scorpion impaled him). With being this MAD, using up a huge amount of feats and one of the two feat points the fighter had, his not-too-great diversity was slaughtered on the spot and then executed.

If I look at famous warriors in diverse media, I feel the D&D/PF fighter is never the chassis used to build on of those. Firstly because they lack diversity (their skill set isn't even good enough for Conan, so he had to dip into rogue, so he had Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue on his sheet) for even the simplest of out-of-combat interaction. Secondly, their skill set is extremely narrow (yes, you may portray a staff wielding prodigy fighter, but having a flavorful amount of maneuvers costs you in efficiency, so a hero that fails most of his maneuvers isn't very - well - heroic). Lastly, a fighter can neither "tank" (e.g. draw or force enemy attention) nor be a furious wind of steel (because that's what the Barbarian does better). The classical blacksmith and fighter trope gets shutdown later on by the need of having a caster level to create weapons that are not horribly outdated.

[Roxxy]

My fix is to not have AOOs for maneuvers in the first place.

[icefractal]

I tried fixing maneuvers (and a number of other feats) here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?263019-Pathfinder-Feats-That-Don-t-Make-Me-Sad)

My solution there was to split the maneuvers into three hopefully equal sets, and say you take the feats for a set, not just for one maneuver. That was a pretty conservative fix though, and it could probably be combined with merging the Improved/Greater feats.

[Kurald Galain]

Perhaps a simple fix would be to give all characters a bonus to CMB equal to their class level, to keep pace with the enemy CMDs.

While I like improving the feats, I would also like maneuvers to be viable occasionally if you don't have the feats. The enemy OA can be dealt with through tactics (by attacking from reach, or while invisible, or when the enemy has already made his OA) so that doesn't bother me.

[Secret Wizard]

Martial Characters already get CMB = class level, including Monks.


I tried fixing maneuvers (and a number of other feats) here

My solution there was to split the maneuvers into three hopefully equal sets, and say you take the feats for a set, not just for one maneuver. That was a pretty conservative fix though, and it could probably be combined with merging the Improved/Greater feats.


Das beautiful, but I honestly think you just made Druids OP.

[Ssalarn]

Perhaps a simple fix would be to give all characters a bonus to CMB equal to their class level, to keep pace with the enemy CMDs.


They already get BAB. That bonus would be far, far too high, to the point where it's not just an auto-success against medium sized humanoids, but against even the largest creatures you'll come in contact with.

For medium creatures, CMB already outscales CMD. A Fighter can trip, sunder, disarm, etc. all day long with even less chance of failure than he has of hitting with his primary attack. If he takes the feats to specialize with a maneuver, he can even reliably use his maneuvers on any legal target.

The issues lie in the fact that there are a lot of creatures you flat out can't target without a bunch of situatuonal buffs or abilities, the fact that size bonuses lead to weird situations like a hill giant being unable to hit a pixie but being capable of disarming its tiny rapier every time, and the fact that there's like 24 separate feats for all the combat maneuvers.

The fix is easy: remove size modifiers from the calculations on both sides of the equation, and condense the improved/greater feats into a single feat.

[Psyren]

You realize that maneuver specialists succeeding only with the express assistance of his allies or during encounters that play directly into their specific build strength is far from a point in their favor, yes?

What allies? A potion of enlarge is very affordable for any fighter and lasts the entire fight, plus fighters can craft their own wondrous items and magic armor/weapons if they want.

What specific build strength? Maneuvers like Dirty Trick, Trip or Bull Rush are universally useful. Others like Sunder and Disarm are less so, but presumably you would not build a situational character for a general campaign or one that doesn't match their skillset. It would be like building a trapfinder for a campaign with no traps.

[Doctor Awkward]

...Maneuvers like Dirty Trick, Trip or Bull Rush are universally useful.

There is still a vast gulf between being a possible use in an encounter and being an effective use in an encounter.

[Psyren]

There is still a vast gulf between being a possible use in an encounter and being an effective use in an encounter.

The idea is to use your resources to make it effective.

[Doctor Awkward]

That just brings us into the argument of whether or not it's worth it to spend your resources on "being excellent" as opposed to spending them on "not sucking".

[Kurald Galain]

That just brings us into the argument of whether or not it's worth it to spend your resources on "being excellent" as opposed to spending them on "not sucking".

That depends on how much resources they are, no? Being a full-BAB class with a reach weapon (and access to Enlarge Person) already means you don't suck at maneuvers, and you haven't even put any resources into specific maneuver-related things yet.

[Doctor Awkward]

That depends on how much resources they are, no? Being a full-BAB class with a reach weapon (and access to Enlarge Person) already means you don't suck at maneuvers, and you haven't even put any resources into specific maneuver-related things yet.

Sorry, I forgot to clarify that I meant character building resources. As in, feats, skill points, and character wealth.

Doing good damage is as simple as having high strength, taking Power Attack and picking up a two-hander. Doing great damage means taking feat chains to increase. Your performance in this area will remain largely consistent, regardless of what you are fighting.


Being good at maneuvers is getting prerequisite ability scores that aren't strength where they need to be, and then spending money and feats just to get yourself from bad into the "very likely to succeed" range. And then as you level you have to spend even more feats to keep yourself out of the "Don't bother rolling" range. At no point do you ever really become "great" unless the encounter plays directly into your build's strength. Your performance will vary far more wildly depending on the nature of your encounters than just doing damage will.

[Kurald Galain]

Being good at maneuvers is getting prerequisite ability scores that aren't strength where they need to be, and then spending money and feats just to get yourself from bad into the "very likely to succeed" range. And then as you level you have to spend even more feats to keep yourself out of the "Don't bother rolling" range. At no point do you ever really become "great" unless the encounter plays directly into your build's strength. Your performance will vary far more wildly depending on the nature of your encounters than just doing damage will.

Please show some numbers to back up your assertions, thank you.

For example, a level 10 magus has +6 from strength, +7 from level, +5 from magic weapon, +18 from spell combat with true strike, for a total of +36 on any maneuver of his choice. That strikes me as pretty good, and I'm pretty sure that can be optimized further. Also, he hasn't spent any money or feats or odd ability scores yet.

[Psyren]

Sorry, I forgot to clarify that I meant character building resources. As in, feats, skill points, and character wealth.

Good, that's what I meant too.



Doing good damage is as simple as having high strength, taking Power Attack and picking up a two-hander. Doing great damage means taking feat chains to increase. Your performance in this area will remain largely consistent, regardless of what you are fighting.

How many feats really boost your damage though? Especially for Fighters. Raw damage tends to come from class features instead - rage/rage powers, spellstrike, sneak attack, favored enemy, spells etc. Feats only get you so far - you've got Power Attack, Weapon Specialization and then...? So you may as well spend the rest on a maneuver. It's also more fun, since you can do something to contribute to a fight besides just full-attack.



Being good at maneuvers is getting prerequisite ability scores that aren't strength where they need to be, and then spending money and feats just to get yourself from bad into the "very likely to succeed" range. And then as you level you have to spend even more feats to keep yourself out of the "Don't bother rolling" range. At no point do you ever really become "great" unless the encounter plays directly into your build's strength. Your performance will vary far more wildly depending on the nature of your encounters than just doing damage will.

Getting 13 Int is not an insurmountable barrier, though I agree it doesn't need to be there. As for money and feats, the whole point is to spend them, and yet again you hit diminishing returns there if you're trying to focus on damage, so you may as well pick up a maneuver.

[Mithril Leaf]

Maneuvers like Dirty Trick, Trip or Bull Rush are universally useful.

This is only true if you don't play past level 9 or so because at that point flight is an expected and mandated aspect of combat. There's a reason Big T's a pushover.

[Ssalarn]

This is only true if you don't play past level 9 or so because at that point flight is an expected and mandated aspect of combat. There's a reason Big T's a pushover.

Dirty Trick and Bull Rush don't care about flight, and trip can still be used if you have a way to ground your opponent (though granted that generally is a bit harder to do).

[Kurald Galain]

This is only true if you don't play past level 9 or so because at that point flight is an expected and mandated aspect of combat. There's a reason Big T's a pushover.

Just because PCs should be able to fly by level 9 doesn't mean that everything they'll be facing can fly.

Just because a trick doesn't work on every enemy you'll encounter doesn't make the trick useless.

[Doctor Awkward]

Please show some numbers to back up your assertions, thank you.

For example, a level 10 magus has +6 from strength, +7 from level, +5 from magic weapon, +18 from spell combat with true strike, for a total of +36 on any maneuver of his choice. That strikes me as pretty good, and I'm pretty sure that can be optimized further. Also, he hasn't spent any money or feats or odd ability scores yet.

Let's start with the fact that every single combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity unless you have the "Improved <Maneuver Name>" feat, and that, for several of them, getting hit by that attack causes your maneuver to fail.

Each of these Improved feats also has the sunk cost of something like Improved Unarmed Strike, a Dex of 13, or Combat Expertise (and thus an Int of 13).

That's a lot of feats.

A CR 11 Giant Emperor Scorpion has a CMD of 37.
That means your Magus wants to bull rush more than 5 feet you have to roll a 6.
If you want to blind him for two rounds you have to roll an 11.
If you want to trip him you have to roll a 13, thanks to his stability bonus.

A CR11 Mud Elemental has a CMD of 44
Roll an 8 or higher to affect it with anything.

Roughly a 50/50 shot is par for the course. It is far from optimal. This is what I'm talking about when I say spending resources on not sucking.

CR 11 Spinosaurus? CMD of 43

How about a CR 11 Deadly Mantis?
CMD of 47, with a 51(!) against trip.
Now he has to roll a freaking 15 to succeed in his trip attempt, and an 11 to succeed at anything else.

Hell, a 10-headed Pyrohydra can't even be tripped, neither can an aghasura (who has a CMD of 41). Even a CR 9 Titan Centipede has a CMD of 41, and yet again can't be tripped. We haven't even looked at young adult dragons yet. How many more examples do you need before they stop becoming outliers?

Also, none of these things are making the enemies any more dead than when the encounter started (terrain notwithstanding). If you are relying on other party members to do that then you have been reassigned from "tank" or "glass cannon" to debuffer. If that's how you want to spend your time game time, it's cool, but there are far more efficient ways of doing that than playing a maneuver specialist.

EDIT:

Just because a trick doesn't work on every enemy you'll encounter doesn't make the trick useless.
No, but it does make it inconsistent.
You know what's not inconsistent? Killing it with damage.

[Ssalarn]

Let's start with the fact that every single combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity unless you have the "Improved <Maneuver Name>" feat, and that, for several of them, getting hit by that attack causes your maneuver to fail.


Such as? Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any maneuvers that fail if you take an AoO (though it's possible I house ruled something so long ago I'very forgotten about it).

[Doctor Awkward]

Such as? Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any maneuvers that fail if you take an AoO (though it's possible I house ruled something so long ago I'very forgotten about it).

Grapple and Disarm for sure.
I always assumed Bull Rush did too, but I could be wrong about that.

In cases like trip the penalty without the feat is so severe (get tripped back, or drop your weapon), that even making the attempt is almost a waste of time.

[Ssalarn]

Grapple and Disarm for sure.
I always assumed Bull Rush did too, but I could be wrong about that.


Just reread both of those, I'm not seeing that they fail if you take the provoked AoO.

[Mithril Leaf]

Just because PCs should be able to fly by level 9 doesn't mean that everything they'll be facing can fly.

Just because a trick doesn't work on every enemy you'll encounter doesn't make the trick useless.

The thing about that is that if you can fly and are fighting something that can't, you've already won the fight and your trick is useless anyway.

[Ssalarn]

The thing about that is that if you can fly and are fighting something that can't, you've already won the fight and your trick is useless anyway.

Not really disagreeing with the basic premise, but there are a lot of items out there that can be used to ground or restrict flying opponents, particularly winged enemies who have natural flight.

[Psyren]

This is only true if you don't play past level 9 or so because at that point flight is an expected and mandated aspect of combat. There's a reason Big T's a pushover.

Even if you do face flying enemies all day every day for whatever boring reason, that doesn't mean all your combats take place on a vast featureless plain.



No, but it does make it inconsistent.
You know what's not inconsistent? Killing it with damage.

Yawn, you must really hate variety.

And again, doing great damage is not mutually exclusive with picking up maneuver feats except at the lowest of levels, when you don't need both to be successful anyway.

And finally, cherry-picking multi-legged or legless monsters to throw at a tripper doesn't prove anything. There are tons of humanoids at that CR as well (e.g. with class levels), tons of undead, tons of giants, tons of aberrations etc. Kurald's magus autosucceeds vs. Cloud Giants, Stone Golems, Mute Hags, Lightning Treants, Hezrous, Hamatulas, Great Cyclopes, Rusalkas and Morrignas, all before feats. Make it Dirty Trick instead and you've got all those plus the untrippables you came up with. Really, your line of attack is just silly.

[Kurald Galain]

A CR11 Mud Elemental has a CMD of 44
Roll an 8 or higher to affect it with anything.

Roughly a 50/50 shot is par for the course. It is far from optimal. This is what I'm talking about when I say spending resources on not sucking.

Well, since it's par for the course, then it's not sucking. QED.

[Mithril Leaf]

Even if you do face flying enemies all day every day for whatever boring reason, that doesn't mean all your combats take place on a vast featureless plain.

Even if you don't spend every battle fighting then, the fact is that they very frequently invalidate tripping as a valid action.

[Psyren]

Even if you don't spend every battle fighting then, the fact is that they very frequently invalidate tripping as a valid action.

And in those cases you don't trip, that should be obvious. But spending feats on something that can sometimes not be useful isn't a crime. Charging doesn't work all the time either, you don't hear people saying pounce is useless.

[CashanDraven]

That's a commonly held and not strictly accurate opinion.

The main issue with the CMB/CMD system is the double-dipping of size increases. Size increases automatically incorporate a bonus to Str that exceeds the corresponding penalty to Dex, so you've already got a leg up there, but then a separate size bonus is added on top. On top of that, most maneuvers are capped at being useable only against creatures up to 2 size categories larger, and some of them have other limitations (trip, for example, doesn't work against creatures who are actively flying, or who have no legs).

All that being said, there's lots of ways to capitalize on combat maneuvers if you understand their strengths and limitations. In adventures like The Ruby Phoenix Tournament where the bulk of your opponents are medium to large weapon-wielding humanoids, a maneuver expert rocks socks. Improved/Greater Disarm or Sunder, Bull Rush, etc. can turn difficult encounters into cakewalks. Maneuver experts can also be kept viable with appropriate buffs, particularly size increasing ones. A Fighter with enlarge person and the corresponding feats can reliably execute maneuvers against creatures up to size gargantuan; if he or an ally has techniques or equipment that can ground a flying creature, he can even use trip fairly reliably, even into later levels.

There are also some maneuvers and builds that can have a severe impact on the battlefield; the Dirty Fighter archetype combined with the Dirty Trick Master feat can lay down wicked battlefield control while focusing on a maneuver that doesn't have any size differential restrictions, particularly when combined with a good reach weapon.

Long time no see Sslaran, good to see you back first of all. However now to the meaty bits.


Monster CMD in Pathfinder is generally out of control, and even with all the bonuses that you can acquire it makes it less than optimal compared to just smacking then in the face.


For example, I'm playing a Wrath Daevic in a campaign, and having a blast with it. Against module npc's, it's been an easy ride, the issue comes when an appropriately CR'd monster hits the field. Huge creature, multiple legs, even with a staggering +17 to my roll, and being able to roll twice, I had to roll a 14 minimum to bull rush it. Odds not in my favor, and this is only at CR9. I know from experience that it is going to get worse. Let's jump this up to CR20, end game monster here would be something iconic, a Balor.


His CMD, is a staggering 54. Now, let's get to my bonuses at that level.


Feats: Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Spiked Destroyer, Quickened Bull Rush, Greater Bull Rush, Bull Rush Strike.

These feats let us build off of bull rushing as well as giving a +4 untyped bonus.

Daevic gives us some fun toys as well, those being a solid +12 competence bonus on bull rush attempts.

Now for equipment:
-Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver (+2 untyped to one combat maneuver)

- Pauldrons of the Bull (Roll twice for Bull rush attempts, take the highest)

-Amulet of Mighty Strikes +5 (Only way to boost natural attacks, and we're going for to hit here)

- Belt of Physical Perfection (+6 to physical stats, my character started with an 18 Str so we'll go with that for a total of 28 Str after the belt and inherent bonuses for a solid +9)

Add all of these up and it puts me at BAB (20) +STR (+9) +Enhancement (+5)+ feats (+4)+ class (+12)+size (+1)=+51.

Now this is more than reasonable, however if you are not a daevic you lose the +12 competence bonus, and if you are not large you lose the +1 size which is moot because you also take a -1 penalty to ALL attack rolls. But without that +12, a normal martial type will be sitting at a +38 vs a 54, so he needs to roll a 16 or higher. He doesn't even hit 50/50, even with the rolling twice and taking the higher.

[Ssalarn]

Long time no see Sslaran, good to see you back first of all. However now to the meaty bits.


Monster CMD in Pathfinder is generally out of control, and even with all the bonuses that you can acquire it makes it less than optimal compared to just smacking then in the face.


For example, I'm playing a Wrath Daevic in a campaign, and having a blast with it. Against module npc's, it's been an easy ride, the issue comes when an appropriately CR'd monster hits the field. Huge creature, multiple legs, even with a staggering +17 to my roll, and being able to roll twice, I had to roll a 14 minimum to bull rush it. Odds not in my favor, and this is only at CR9. I know from experience that it is going to get worse. Let's jump this up to CR20, end game monster here would be something iconic, a Balor.


His CMD, is a staggering 54. Now, let's get to my bonuses at that level.


Feats: Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Spiked Destroyer, Quickened Bull Rush, Greater Bull Rush, Bull Rush Strike.

These feats let us build off of bull rushing as well as giving a +4 untyped bonus.

Daevic gives us some fun toys as well, those being a solid +12 competence bonus on bull rush attempts.

Now for equipment:
-Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver (+2 untyped to one combat maneuver)

- Pauldrons of the Bull (Roll twice for Bull rush attempts, take the highest)

-Amulet of Mighty Strikes +5 (Only way to boost natural attacks, and we're going for to hit here)

- Belt of Physical Perfection (+6 to physical stats, my character started with an 18 Str so we'll go with that for a total of 28 Str after the belt and inherent bonuses for a solid +9)

Add all of these up and it puts me at BAB (20) +STR (+9) +Enhancement (+5)+ feats (+4)+ class (+12)+size (+1)=+51.

Now this is more than reasonable, however if you are not a daevic you lose the +12 competence bonus, and if you are not large you lose the +1 size which is moot because you also take a -1 penalty to ALL attack rolls. But without that +12, a normal martial type will be sitting at a +38 vs a 54, so he needs to roll a 16 or higher. He doesn't even hit 50/50, even with the rolling twice and taking the higher.


It's good to be back :)

Now, Daevic is obviously amazing at bull rushing (he has to be) but the numbers aren't quite as bleak for other martial classes. Unless you happen to be a Rogue or unarchetyped monk, you're going to have your own unique bonuses to stack on:

Cavaliers will have their charge bonuses, potentially bonuses from teamwork feats, and any to-hit bonuses offered by their order. They also have the advantage of getting to hit first and then bull rush when Mighty Charge comes online, which is actually a bit better than the daevic.

Barbarians get Rage, and then potentially other modifiers from rage powers.

Rangers get Favored Enemy, and by the level they're fighting balors they should be able to pop instant enemy for a crazy +10.

The list goes on, but the point is generally the same; there's enough static bonuses in place for the full BAB classes to hit with maneuvers about 50% of the time or better. With the buffs one would expect from an actual party, like haste or Inspire Courage, most martials are going to be all but guaranteed to succeed at any maneuver they've chosen to focus on, even against larger, more powerful foes like a balor. Against humanoid opponents with class levels, they're just checking to ensure they didn't roll a 1.

[Mithril Leaf]

And in those cases you don't trip, that should be obvious. But spending feats on something that can sometimes not be useful isn't a crime. Charging doesn't work all the time either, you don't hear people saying pounce is useless.

Pounce also removes an enemy from the fight by murderizing them rather then causing a moderate inconvenience.

[Doctor Awkward]

There are tons of humanoids at that CR as well (e.g. with class levels), tons of undead, tons of giants, tons of aberrations etc. Kurald's magus autosucceeds vs. Cloud Giants, Stone Golems, Mute Hags, Lightning Treants, Hezrous, Hamatulas, Great Cyclopes, Rusalkas and Morrignas, all before feats. Make it Dirty Trick instead and you've got all those plus the untrippables you came up with. Really, your line of attack is just silly.

In other words, tons of things that pretty much just like the party, only slightly different.
And I'm the one that hates variety?

An argument that cherry-picks examples where a maneuver specialist would shine carries exactly the same weight as one that lists examples where he doesn't. That is, none at all, and proves only that in the right circumstances they can be effective. It doesn't make the maneuvers good. It puts them squarely in a category as any other build that requires a DM to tailor his encounters to avoid that player feeling useless.


The list goes on, but the point is generally the same; there's enough static bonuses in place for the full BAB classes to hit with maneuvers about 50% of the time or better.

And what, exactly, makes that acceptable?
A maneuver specialist that has a 50/50 affecting the enemy with his maneuver every combat round is the same as playing a wizard while wearing full plate and carrying a heavy steel shield. If you wouldn't consider that for a wizard, why would you consider it for any other character?

Furthermore, it's not just about hitting the CMD. Occasionally you have to blow it out of the water for the maneuver to mean anything. Without Improved Dirty Fighting, you do nothing but spend your standard action to eat the targets move action every round. That is not a favorable exchange. With Bull Rush and Drag you have to beat the DC by 5 for every 5 feet of movement you need. "Oh no, that fighter is slowly pushing me towards the cliff at the rate of 10 feet per round. I wonder if I can smash his face in the six rounds it will take to get there."
I honestly couldn't even tell you how grappling is supposed to work any more, other than is seems to be a really bad plan for the grappler.

The OP asked why no one ever really makes a maneuver specialist. The answer is that combat maneuvers, out of the box, suck, and you have to spend your build resources making them not suck instead of taking something that is already pretty good and spending your resources on making it excellent.

[Ssalarn]

In other words, tons of things that pretty much just like the party, only slightly different.
And I'm the one that hates variety?

An argument that cherry-picks examples where a maneuver specialist would shine carries exactly the same weight as one that lists examples where he doesn't. That is, none at all, and proves only that in the right circumstances they can be effective. It doesn't make the maneuvers good. It puts them squarely in a category as any other build that requires a DM to tailor his encounters to avoid that player feeling useless.



And what, exactly, makes that acceptable?
A maneuver specialist that has a 50/50 affecting the enemy with his maneuver every combat round is the same as playing a wizard while wearing full plate and carrying a heavy steel shield. If you wouldn't consider that for a wizard, why would you consider it for any other character?

Furthermore, it's not just about hitting the CMD. Occasionally you have to blow it out of the water for the maneuver to mean anything. Without Improved Dirty Fighting, you do nothing but spend your standard action to eat the targets move action every round. That is not a favorable exchange. With Bull Rush and Drag you have to beat the DC by 5 for every 5 feet of movement you need. "Oh no, that fighter is slowly pushing me towards the cliff at the rate of 10 feet per round. I wonder if I can smash his face in the six rounds it will take to get there."
I honestly couldn't even tell you how grappling is supposed to work any more, other than is seems to be a really bad plan for the grappler.

The OP asked why no one ever really makes a maneuver specialist. The answer is that combat maneuvers, out of the box, suck, and you have to spend your build resources making them not suck instead of taking something that is already pretty good and spending your resources on making it excellent.

Martial characters get lots of attacks, not just one. You can mix and match maneuvers as needed to optimize your effectiveness. I like having TWFs Quick Bull Rush an enemy into flanking to get more out of their iterative attacks, Disarm them and flick their weapon 15 feet away (which was off a cliff the last time I did it) to remove their ability to effectively deal damage or even use their class abilities depending on what they are, then rip into them with their remaining attacks. It was pretty much that exact strategy that one of my players used to have his core Fighter defeat a Path of War Warlord BBEG, with a 95% chance of succeeding on his combat maneuvers since he'd specialized in them. The "epic duel" quickly turned into the "second worst class in the game" destroying a far more versatile class. It's a 50% chance against giant freaking monsters, but an almost guaranteed chance against humanoid opponents, most fey, the vast majority of weapon-wielding undead, etc. Why is grease a good spell when it takes away an opponent's ability to move or swing their weapon, and yet those same capabilities with no spell slot limit on a martial character are considered garbage?

The Dirty Fighter using Dirty Trick Master is probably the best non-caster controller I've ever seen, able to take whole swaths of enemies out of the fight in a single round, and there's many other ways to leverage combat maneuvers effectively. My PFS Hunter leverages feint and trip attacks to pull off big combo attacks that are better than most martial full attacks. My gnome Inquisitor owned the battlefield in Skulls and Shackles, using his hook hand to disarm opponents and fling their weapons off the ship or into the thick of his allies so the enemy had no chance to retrieve them. My Marksman regularly used trip and disarm until that campaign ended, leaving opponents that drew close as easy pickings for his Aegis ally while he would continue to leverage his ranged attacks against distant foes after he was no longer in immediate danger. The Brawler class is an amazing maneuver specialist, able to instantly access the chain of maneuvers appropriate for a given situation. My Armorist (from Spheres of Power) keeps a lucerne hammer in his bonded equipment, as the sunder bonus allows him an excellent option when combating heavily armored opponents like antipaladins and mageknights.

People generally don't use combat maneuvers because they either have misconceptions about them, or they don't like leveraging permanent resources for gains that won't be appropriate to every situation. Sometimes they're just not sure how to do the simple little things that turn the math in their favor, despite those things often being as simple as using a double chicken saber instead of a longsword or temple sword if they're going to focus on disarming, thereby gaining a +2 bonus on their CMB (actually, Monk, with Qinggong and probably another archetype, dual wielding a temple sword in one hand and a double chicken saber in the other is one of my favorite builds when I can afford it, as I have a tripping weapon in one hand that I'm willing to lose, a disarming weapon in the other, and the worst case scenario is that I only get to use the stupidly high damage dice from my unarmed strike). They are useful though, and often drastically change battlefield dynamics. Disarm is one of my favorites, as it's often turned lopsided combats on their heads, allowing my characters to defeat enemies they never could have traded blows with otherwise.

[Psyren]

*snip*

Listen to this guy, he knows what he's talking about. And while we're at it, the Fighter's Weapon Training gets added in here too (for maneuvers that use that weapon, e.g. Trip) and if he's a Lore Warden, he's getting +8 on top of that, plus he has the full maneuver chain before anybody else save perhaps a monk or ranger.


Pounce also removes an enemy from the fight by murderizing them rather then causing a moderate inconvenience.

And pounce/charge can be shut down even more easily than maneuvers can.

But the nice thing about martial classes is that you can go for both "lots of damage on a charge" and "reliable with at least one maneuver." It can be done! You just need skill and a search engine.


In other words, tons of things that pretty much just like the party, only slightly different.

Your parties consist of golems, demons, devils, giants, monstrous humanoids and aberrations? Pull the other one why don't you :smalltongue:


An argument that cherry-picks examples where a maneuver specialist would shine carries exactly the same weight as one that lists examples where he doesn't. That is, none at all, and proves only that in the right circumstances they can be effective. It doesn't make the maneuvers good. It puts them squarely in a category as any other build that requires a DM to tailor his encounters to avoid that player feeling useless.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I clicked "monsters by CR" and chose random entries from 10, 11 and 12, because his Magus was 10. And you can build a fighter with only slightly lower numbers if you know what you're doing. It's not that hard.

[upho]

Lots of true stuff.This. While the effectiveness of various combat maneuvers vary, along with the benefits of their related features/feats/items, you can certainly get very good mileage out of some of them. Personally, I stay away from sunder unless I'm playing a spell sunder barb, and usually disarm unless the game is contained to lower levels, but I think I've seen all the other maneuvers made into devastating BFC tools when the player prioritized them and spent resources with a modicum of sense.


For example, I'm playing a Wrath Daevic in a campaign, and having a blast with it. Against module npc's, it's been an easy ride, the issue comes when an appropriately CR'd monster hits the field. Huge creature, multiple legs, even with a staggering +17 to my roll, and being able to roll twice, I had to roll a 14 minimum to bull rush it. Odds not in my favor, and this is only at CR9. I know from experience that it is going to get worse. Let's jump this up to CR20, end game monster here would be something iconic, a Balor.

His CMD, is a staggering 54.Sorry, but I don't really get why CMD +54 should be considered "staggering". I believe quite a few full bab builds using only Paizo components may consistently trip a balor at level 20, without needing any kind of party support or limited resources. Heck, even my dual-wielding play test warder build (lore warden fighter 4 / warder 16) had a bull rush and trip CMB above +50 at this level (not using any kind of martial maneuver or stance), despite having less bonus feats or other related class features and being ridiculously MAD in comparison to a similar Paizo full bab build (which would most likely also deal enough average damage to kill a balor with a full attack). Of course, any build would have to spend quite a lot of resources, especially on items, to achieve this, but you certainly don't need the daevic's +12 competence bonus to consistently beat CMD +54 at 20th level. As a sidenote, something like the mentioned dirty fighter can be expected to be able to consistently perform dirty tricks against any enemy with CMD +54, a success usually taking the enemy out of the fight.

That said, I believe there are severe problems with combat maneuvers. In addition to the Paizo martials' universal problems (item dependence, poor versatility and action economy etc), I think the most glaring problems with combat maneuvers are that they typically require too many feats to be useful and that they too often are useless in higher level combat. In my game I'm using the same quick and dirty fix Psyren mentioned on combat maneuver feats and other combat feat chains (such as TWF), though the benefits of the later feats are added once prerequisites are met. I've also removed Combat Expertise and Int 13 as prerequisites for any combat feat, and, among several other related minor tweaks, have house ruled that flying creatures can be tripped, though they become staggered and flat-footed and take a -4 penalty to Dex until they spend a move action when tripped. Works a lot better than the current RAW, for sure.

[upho]

And pounce/charge can be shut down even more easily than maneuvers can.

But the nice thing about martial classes is that you can go for both "lots of damage on a charge" and "reliable with at least one maneuver." It can be done! You just need skill and a search engine.While I don't believe the somewhat competently built pouncer is shut down easily (Dragon Style, anyone?), I totally agree with the second statement. And it's not like pounce only benefits dedicated damage-dealers, it's just as excellent for many combat maneuver focused builds.

[CashanDraven]

This. While the effectiveness of various combat maneuvers vary, along with the benefits of their related features/feats/items, you can certainly get very good mileage out of some of them. Personally, I stay away from sunder unless I'm playing a spell sunder barb, and usually disarm unless the game is contained to lower levels, but I think I've seen all the other maneuvers made into devastating BFC tools when the player prioritized them and spent resources with a modicum of sense.

Sorry, but I don't really get why CMD +54 should be considered "staggering". I believe quite a few full bab builds using only Paizo components may consistently trip a balor at level 20, without needing any kind of party support or limited resources. Heck, even my dual-wielding play test warder build (lore warden fighter 4 / warder 16) had a bull rush and trip CMB above +50 at this level (not using any kind of martial maneuver or stance), despite having less bonus feats or other related class features and being ridiculously MAD in comparison to a similar Paizo full bab build (which would most likely also deal enough average damage to kill a balor with a full attack). Of course, any build would have to spend quite a lot of resources, especially on items, to achieve this, but you certainly don't need the daevic's +12 competence bonus to consistently beat CMD +54 at 20th level. As a sidenote, something like the mentioned dirty fighter can be expected to be able to consistently perform dirty tricks against any enemy with CMD +54, a success usually taking the enemy out of the fight.

That said, I believe there are severe problems with combat maneuvers. In addition to the Paizo martials' universal problems (item dependence, poor versatility and action economy etc), I think the most glaring problems with combat maneuvers are that they typically require too many feats to be useful and that they too often are useless in higher level combat. In my game I'm using the same quick and dirty fix Psyren mentioned on combat maneuver feats and other combat feat chains (such as TWF), though the benefits of the later feats are added once prerequisites are met. I've also removed Combat Expertise and Int 13 as prerequisites for any combat feat, and, among several other related minor tweaks, have house ruled that flying creatures can be tripped, though they become staggered and flat-footed and take a -4 penalty to Dex until they spend a move action when tripped. Works a lot better than the current RAW, for sure.

I'm not trying to be a nancy here, but you really need to slap a build out before just saying that there are several builds that can hit that mark. And yes, 54 is a massive number as as far as I was able to tell a normal fighter can only hit around +34, meaning he needs a nat 20 to succeed,certainly not even close to viable. Of course Barbarians can do a bit better as can rangers but those are generally one off's or extremely limited.

Also, cannot trip a Balor, it can fly, so there's that little bit.


Also, I'm not really fond of Mighty charge as you must be mounted for that to work, and in 99% of games you will not be mounted and you really have to try to make a Cavalier be worth the effort as it's a very underpowered class.

[skypse]

Wow guys thank you for your contributions honestly! This is getting really educating for me!! :D

Now let me get in there. First and foremost, Flying creatures cannot be tripped while flying but they can easily be tripped once they land and they usually have to land in order to attack you (or at least be close to the ground in case of reach). Correct me if I'm wrong but bull rushing/Dragging a flying creature screws up his flying and it must make several checks to not spend 1 round to get up to the air again after provoking more AoOs than Justin Bieber would in a concert if he jumped into the audience.
Also, in the case of aerial combat, you can still charge/bull rush a flying opponent which will result in him losing his balance.

In a party where you have 1 wizard, 1 cleric and 1 fighter I guess it's only logical for the fighter to be the 2handed overhand chop power attacking glass cannon, but why be that guy again if you have an archer and a rogue in your party as well? Being a frontliner oftens means that you have to block people from getting to your backlines which means you must provide Crowd (Battlefield) Control and be sturdy enough to endure getting hit. Take CaGM (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/come-and-get-me-ex) for example. Lots of AoOs that can be used both for damage and more maneuvers, while one can spend his turn's actions creating more Battlefield control around him.

You have a problem with the idiotic (I agree) INT 13 prereq? Brawler from ACG ignores it.

Also, as far as the encounters are concerned, there always are monsters and creatures that are really strong against a certain type of build. Huge AC numbers for strikers, high CMD numbers for maneuver specialists, high SR for spellcasting nukers, precision damage immunities for rogues and the likes etc. And then there is always Cthulhu. Everything has a counter so there is no point in measuring who has the biggest stick. At the end of the day, everything that can't be tripped/dirty tricked/bull rushed/dragged around, will also most likely be immune to Blindness/Deafness, Grease, Black Tentacles, Enervation etc so the role of the wizard will instantly turn around to summon/buff just like the role of the warrior can always turn around from maneuvers to "smack it until it breaks".

I'm starting to get the feeling that D&D and Pathfinder have brainwashed us so much into thinking that hitting stuff is the way to go, that we completely tend to ignore or even snob every other path/build there is to follow.

[AGrinningCat]

I'm starting to get the feeling that D&D and Pathfinder have brainwashed us so much into thinking that hitting stuff is the way to go, that we completely tend to ignore or even snob every other path/build there is to follow.

Death is the penultimate crowd control option. It's also the one with the most paths to get to. It's also very reliable.

[skypse]

It's also something that most wizards (masters of cc according to most of people) don't do at all. It is also what most BBEGs are immune to.
Save or suck? Unbeatable.
Save or die? Unreliable.

[AGrinningCat]

You can save against Save or Suck. It's rarely unbeatable.
You can't save against death when your HP is at your -1*CON.

The problem is that CMD gets ****ing silly at higher levels. A CR 13 Iron Golem has a 39 CMD. A 13th level fighter needs +16 in STR and extra bonuses to even get a 50% shot at successfully getting a maneuver off. A Lamia (CR 6) has 28 CMD, 32 vs Trip. A level 6 Fighter against her needs +12 in STR and extra bonuses, +16 if trying to trip. Some things are just flat out immune to Combat Maneuvers (Many monsters cannot be tripped, and a lot more simply fly). Hell, a ****ing CR 3 Lion is 22, 26 vs trip, which isn't unobtainable for a 50/50 shot -- But it's AC is only 15. It's so much easier to just hit the thing than try to shove it around/knock it down/whatever.

[Kurald Galain]

Martial characters get lots of attacks, not just one. You can mix and match maneuvers as needed to optimize your effectiveness. I like having TWFs Quick Bull Rush an enemy into flanking to get more out of their iterative attacks, Disarm them and flick their weapon 15 feet away (which was off a cliff the last time I did it) to remove their ability to effectively deal damage or even use their class abilities depending on what they are, then rip into them with their remaining attacks. It was pretty much that exact strategy that one of my players used to have his core Fighter defeat a Path of War Warlord BBEG, with a 95% chance of succeeding on his combat maneuvers since he'd specialized in them. The "epic duel" quickly turned into the "second worst class in the game" destroying a far more versatile class. It's a 50% chance against giant freaking monsters, but an almost guaranteed chance against humanoid opponents, most fey, the vast majority of weapon-wielding undead, etc. Why is grease a good spell when it takes away an opponent's ability to move or swing their weapon, and yet those same capabilities with no spell slot limit on a martial character are considered garbage?

Well, I'm glad to see that the notion that "special attacks are useless" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Doctor Awkward]

You can save against Save or Suck. It's rarely unbeatable.
You can't save against death when your HP is at your -1*CON.

The problem is that CMD gets ****ing silly at higher levels. A CR 13 Iron Golem has a 39 CMD. A 13th level fighter needs +16 in STR and extra bonuses to even get a 50% shot at successfully getting a maneuver off. A Lamia (CR 6) has 28 CMD, 32 vs Trip. A level 6 Fighter against her needs +12 in STR and extra bonuses, +16 if trying to trip. Some things are just flat out immune to Combat Maneuvers (Many monsters cannot be tripped, and a lot more simply fly). Hell, a ****ing CR 3 Lion is 22, 26 vs trip, which isn't unobtainable for a 50/50 shot -- But it's AC is only 15. It's so much easier to just hit the thing than try to shove it around/knock it down/whatever.

This is a somewhat oversimplified version of what I'm trying to say.

I don't think combat maneuvers are completely worthless, just that the effort spent to make them worthwhile could be better directed at doing other things.

Take a situation where you are guaranteed to succeed on a Dirty Trick to blind an opponent. They lose their +3 Dex bonus to AC, allowing your other two melee companions to dog-pile it for some easier damage. Good job. But was the extra damage they were able to do more than what it would have amounted to if you had just also attacked normally? Maybe. Depends on the other circumstances. Sometimes it is, and sometimes you are worse off than if you had just smacked it for damage.

Sure, with some thought you can come up with all kinds of situations where combat maneuvers are the optimal choice. In particular, if you need to disable an enemy without harming it for some reason. But these situations often feel contrived, and their likelihood in an actual game is questionable at best.

Ultimately my simplified description of combat maneuvers is "Mostly useless", appended with "Occasionally pivotal". If you know for a fact that the game you are participating in is going to revolved around mostly humanoid-shaped enemies that are roughly your size, maneuvers can be made to work well for you. But the underlying problems with the system outside of that campaign are still there.

[skypse]

Take a situation where you are guaranteed to succeed on a Dirty Trick to blind an opponent. They lose their +3 Dex bonus to AC, allowing your other two melee companions to dog-pile it for some easier damage. Good job. But was the extra damage they were able to do more than what it would have amounted to if you had just also attacked normally? Maybe. Depends on the other circumstances. Sometimes it is, and sometimes you are worse off than if you had just smacked it for damage.

Actually decreasing his AC by 3, giving you and your buddies a flanking bonus and adding a +4 to attack rolls if you trip said opponent, adds up for MUCH more damage than just hitting the opponent because you have MUCH better chances to hit him. So the blind in your example is not just "Good job". It was better than any attack action you could have taken against him.

[AmberVael]

Death is the penultimate crowd control option. It's also the one with the most paths to get to. It's also very reliable.

If death is only the penultimate option, what's the ultimate option?

[Elricaltovilla]

If death is only the penultimate option, what's the ultimate option?

Thinaun weapons, duh. :smalltongue:

[AGrinningCat]

If death is only the penultimate option, what's the ultimate option?

A death that prevents reincarnation/revival or further interference from the target. Some sort of, mega death.

[AmberVael]

A death that prevents reincarnation/revival or further interference from the target. Some sort of, mega death.

News just in, bards are the best at crowd control. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeth)

[skypse]

News just in, bards are the best at crowd control. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadeth)

Lol'd so hard with this that the whole office is staring at me right now!!! Give this man his award please!

[Psyren]

The problem is that CMD gets ****ing silly at higher levels. A CR 13 Iron Golem has a 39 CMD. A 13th level fighter needs +16 in STR and extra bonuses to even get a 50% shot at successfully getting a maneuver off. A Lamia (CR 6) has 28 CMD, 32 vs Trip. A level 6 Fighter against her needs +12 in STR and extra bonuses, +16 if trying to trip. Some things are just flat out immune to Combat Maneuvers (Many monsters cannot be tripped, and a lot more simply fly). Hell, a ****ing CR 3 Lion is 22, 26 vs trip, which isn't unobtainable for a 50/50 shot -- But it's AC is only 15. It's so much easier to just hit the thing than try to shove it around/knock it down/whatever.

How is 39 CMD at 13 silly? Have you even built a melee character in PF before?

Naked/Mundane Chassis:

Fighter 13 stats = 19 Str (16 start + 3 from levels.)
Fighter feats = Power Attack, Weapon Focus (thing you are using), Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Felling Smash = 7 feats remaining. (Maybe throw in Stand Still + Steady Engagement to lock down a chokepoint.)

Total trip bonus before magic items: 13 BAB + 4 Str + 5 Feats + 3 Weapon Training = +25. So buck-*** naked except for his starting weapon, our archetype-less fighter wins on a 14.

Items:

Fighter 13 Wealth = 140,000.

+6 Belt of Giant Strength (+3) = 36000 (25% of wealth.)
+4 2H weapon (+4 enh) = 32000 (23% of wealth.)
Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver (+2) = 4000 (3% of wealth.)
Brown Thorny Ioun Stone (optional) (+2 comp) = 8000 (6% of wealth.)

Total bonus = +9 (+11 with the ioun stone.) Now he succeeds on a 5 (or 3.)
Total spend = 80,000 on offense (with ioun stone.)
Remaining wealth for... whatever: 60,000
Slots used = waist, hands, weapon.
Slots remaining = everything else.

Note that these prices assume the Fighter is just buying them; he can also craft all of this stuff by himself. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final) At high levels, he can even craft his own +5 Manual of Gainful Exercise for that inherent Wish bonus.

Party Buffs/Consumables:

Haste is a pretty expected buff at 13 - let's throw that in. Now he succeeds on a 2.
Morale is pretty common too (Bless or Heroism.) That's either +1 or +2 morale. Now he is just rolling to see if he gets a 1.
Let's throw in luck while we're at it (Prayer.)
And finally, Enlarge Person for +1 Size.

Note that all of these are available as potions (3rd-level or lower) if you really want them - but you don't need them since, again, you're succeeding on a 3 without them.

Note also that almost all of these items are making you better at vanilla full-attacking too, not just tripping. (Only the gauntlets and stone do not affect your normal attacks, and there is nothing better to put in those slots anyway.)

***

I don't know if you guys are trying to compare naked fighters to these challenges, but yeah, the math will fail if you do that. The whole point is... not to do that. They call it "wealth by level" for a reason, you know? The game expects you to spend your wealth on combat gear, not to dive into a big vault of it like Scrooge McDuck.

Note I started my fighter with 16 Str as well - start with 18 or 20 (or 22 - hi there Orc!) and the math comes together even sooner.

Archetypes make this even sillier - Lore Warden gives you an additional +8 untyped at 13 (+6 passive Maneuver Mastery, +2 Know Thy Enemy) while Mutation Fighter is getting an additional +6 alchemical strength.

You do not need a Master's Degree from Op-U for any of this stuff.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yeah, that's great. Except that even after eliminating the things that are immune to trip (incorporeals, swarms, untrippables, etc.) leaves you with about 1/3 of the critters at CR 13 that you are auto-succeeding at. Everything else you need at least a 5 or better.

All the way up to a CR 13 Water Element Construct with a CMD of 60. Now you need to roll a 21 on a 1d20 natural 20 to succeed.

And this still doesn't solve the problem of maneuvers that you need to exceed the CMD in order for them to mean anything. By a lot. In fact, you need to exceed the CMD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuver-Defense) to accomplish any maneuver at all. Not match it, beat it. Every +1 counts, remember?
And, oh, wait, my bad, but only Sunder, Disarm, and Trip (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom) allow you to add your weapon bonus to your CMB. So toss that enhancement bonus and anything gained from weapon related feats right out the window for every other maneuver you attempt.

You don't need a black belt in Op-Fu to realize that the wildly varying CMD's at the same CR will lead to very inconsistent performances from maneuver specialists.

And it still doesn't answer the question that if you can ratchet up your damage to acceptable amounts basically without even trying, then what's the point in bothering with maneuvers at all?

[skypse]

All the way up to a CR 13 Water Element Construct with a CMD of 60. Now you need to roll a 21 on a 1d20 natural 20 to succeed.
Seriously now, where do you find such creatures? This is not an optimization contest for god's sake. The average adventure has 1-2 encounters per day. How often are you going to run into Water Element Constructs? Why don't you just compare everything to Orcus, Cthulhu, Rovagug and the rest of those "frequent" encounters? Nobody said that Maneuvers work 100% of the time. Neither does hitting stuff however since there is that little thing called AC remember?



And this still doesn't solve the problem of maneuvers that you need to exceed the CMD in order for them to mean anything. By a lot. In fact, you need to exceed the CMD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuver-Defense) to accomplish any maneuver at all. Not match it, beat it. Every +1 counts, remember?
Yeah! I mean totally! I still remember that day when my English teacher taught me that "equal or greater" means exceed! This is pathfinder dude! The side that rolls wins the ties!

If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success



And it still doesn't answer the question that if you can ratchet up your damage to acceptable amounts basically without even trying, then what's the point in bothering with maneuvers at all?
Because you want to play a different kind of fighter than the regular beatstick?

[Coidzor]

Also, it's generally only "impossible" if you ignore any and all bonus sources to a particular maneuver. Yes, if you're just relying on BAB + Str + Improved/Greater X, you're going to fail at most maneuvers, but the whole idea is to not just rely on those things.

So you have to invest a significant amount of money into items that boost that shtick and that shtick alone and 3-4 feats... in order to be passable at it, 5-7 feats to be good. That's not a problem to you? :smallconfused:

[skypse]

So you have to invest a significant amount of money into items that boost that shtick and that shtick alone and 3-4 feats... in order to be passable at it, 5-7 feats to be good. That's not a problem to you? :smallconfused:

Isn't this the point of every build? I mean if someone wants to play an archer fighter, he will invest in archery feats. If someone wants to play a maneuver specialist, he will invest in maneuver feats. Don't forget that at the end of the day he can still hit hard with his Power Attack (since it is a prereq anyway) so it's not like ALL he can do is maneuvers. He just won't be as good as the two handed beatstick would be.

[Coidzor]

Isn't this the point of every build? I mean if someone wants to play an archer fighter, he will invest in archery feats. If someone wants to play a maneuver specialist, he will invest in maneuver feats. Don't forget that at the end of the day he can still hit hard with his Power Attack (since it is a prereq anyway) so it's not like ALL he can do is maneuvers. He just won't be as good as the two handed beatstick would be.

:smallconfused: That you have to take 2 feats just to have basic competency(and one of them is a feat tax) and even more investment to get passably goodish as an archer is something that has been derided since 3.5 if not 3.0.

[Elricaltovilla]

Isn't this the point of every build? I mean if someone wants to play an archer fighter, he will invest in archery feats. If someone wants to play a maneuver specialist, he will invest in maneuver feats. Don't forget that at the end of the day he can still hit hard with his Power Attack (since it is a prereq anyway) so it's not like ALL he can do is maneuvers. He just won't be as good as the two handed beatstick would be.

Which combat maneuver feat is Power Attack a prerequisite for?

And comparing a Bull Rushing invested fighter against and archer fighter isn't going to go in favor of the bull rusher. Sure, you knocked your opponent back 30 ft. He's still alive and kicking though. Whereas the Archer Fighter dumped somewhere between 1 and 7 (possibly 9 if a Zen Archer Monk) attacks doing at least 1d8 damage with their damage pool totaled before applying DR from up to 880 ft. away from the target (this is assuming use of a longbow). Hardly optimized, but there is a definite difference in power between the two fighting styles.

[Psyren]

So you have to invest a significant amount of money into items that boost that shtick and that shtick alone and 3-4 feats... in order to be passable at it, 5-7 feats to be good. That's not a problem to you? :smallconfused:

@ gear: You do realize I hope that the most expensive items on that list (strength belt and weapon) are things you'd be buying anyway, maneuvers or not? Bro, do you even fighter? :smalltongue:

@ feats: 4-6 feats out of 14 - how wasteful! Tell me, what else were you going to spend them on anyway, Toughness? :smallconfused:

You do know PF Fighters get a feat every level, right? Spending them is rather the point.

In fact, my own build above trips every creature Tony listed (save the "water elemental construct") on a 2 and still has 8 feats and 60k left over. So I have to ask, how many feats do you need exactly?


Which combat maneuver feat is Power Attack a prerequisite for?

Felling Smash, which I listed.

[Kurald Galain]

So you have to invest a significant amount of money into items that boost that shtick and that shtick alone and 3-4 feats... in order to be passable at it, 5-7 feats to be good. That's not a problem to you? :smallconfused:

No, that's clearly not what he's doing.

The big expenses here (i.e. the Belt of Giant Strength and the +4 weapon) boost everything the fighter does. Pretty much every strength-based melee character will eventually want a belt +6 and a weapon +4.

And yes, you spend feats to become good at something. That's what feats are FOR.

[Mithril Leaf]

Stuff showing that you can invest many resources and be good at combat maneuvers.

Not mentioning any of that stuff about maneuvers, but use Gloves of Dueling for your hand slot, it boosts your Weapon Training.

[NightbringerGGZ]

A death that prevents reincarnation/revival or further interference from the target. Some sort of, mega death.

That would be Cessation.

[Psyren]

And yes, you spend feats to become good at something. That's what feats are FOR.

It utterly baffles me that people do not get this concept. Were they just framing their feats and hanging them on the wall before? :smallbiggrin:


Not mentioning any of that stuff about maneuvers, but use Gloves of Dueling for your hand slot, it boosts your Weapon Training.

Hmm... For tripping it's equal to the gauntlets, but also applies to general attack/damage, and also translates to a +6 CMD vs. disarm and sunder. But I'm not sure if that is worth nearly 4x the price of the gauntlets. Maybe at higher levels.

[upho]

I'm not trying to be a nancy here, but you really need to slap a build out before just saying that there are several builds that can hit that mark. And yes, 54 is a massive number as as far as I was able to tell a normal fighter can only hit around +34, meaning he needs a nat 20 to succeed,certainly not even close to viable. Of course Barbarians can do a bit better as can rangers but those are generally one off's or extremely limited.Well, typical fighter str, bab and weapon training alone adds up to a CMB of at the very least +35 (20 bab, 10 str, 5 wt). Add archetype bonuses, items and feats to that and you'll end up well above +50. I think you've forgotten to include some major bonuses in your calculations. Here's a quick example build:

Lore Warden 20

Feats
Combat Exp.
I. Trip
G. Trip
Combat Reflexes
I. Bull-Rush
G. Bull-Rush
Fury's Fall
Shield Prof.
I. Shield Bash
Shield Slam
Shield Master
TWF
ITWF
WF (heavy spiked shield)
(Example additional feats: IUS, Punishing Kick, Wolf Style, Wolf Trip)

Relevant Gear
Main hand: +5 maelstrom +1 dueling heavy spiked steel shield
Off hand: +1 maelstrom +2 impact heavy spiked steel shield
Other: Juggernaut's pauldrons of the bull, Pliant dueling gauntlets of the skilled maneuver, +6 Belt of physical perfection, Dusty rose prism in Wayfinder, Thorny brown ioun stone, +4 Manual of gainful exercise

Str 34: 16 base +2 racial, +4 level, +4 manual, +6 belt, +2 large (pauldrons)
Dex 20: 15 base, +1 level, +6 belt, -2 large (pauldrons)

Main hand bull rush CMB +62, rolled twice using best result (free on shield bash hit): +20 bab, +12 str, +7 fgtr weapon training (incl. +2 gloves of dueling), +8 maneuver mastery, +4 bull rush feats, +1 WF, +5 shield enhancement, +2 impact, +2 dusty rose, +1 large size, roll twice pauldrons
Main hand trip CMB +71 (free on shield bash hit): +20 bab, +12 str, +7 fgtr weapon training (incl. +2 gloves of dueling), +8 maneuver mastery, +4 trip feats, +1 WF, +5 dex fury's fall, +5 shield enhancement, +2 dueling weapon (PFSG), +2 gauntlets of the skilled maneuver, +2 dusty rose, +2 thorny brown ioun, +1 large size

Off hand bonuses are about 3 less for bull rush and 5 less for trip.
As you can see, it's quite easy to get past even +60. (Note that it's absolutely not necessary to dual wield shields to gain the bonuses illustrated above, I just happened to have much of it already written down in another build which I could copy. The shields are damn good for other reasons though.)


Also, cannot trip a Balor, it can fly, so there's that little bit.You can trip a balor as long as it isn't flying (RAW here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Trip)).



Also, I'm not really fond of Mighty charge as you must be mounted for that to work, and in 99% of games you will not be mounted and you really have to try to make a Cavalier be worth the effort as it's a very underpowered class.Who said anything about Mighty charge?

[Doctor Awkward]

I'm still not grasping how a character built to deny an opponent's move action every round is somehow less of a one-trick pony than a character that's built to kill whatever he is aimed at in one hit every round.

[Psyren]

I'm still not grasping how a character built to deny an opponent's move action every round is somehow less of a one-trick pony than a character that's built to kill whatever he is aimed at in one hit every round.

I'm still not grasping why you think these are mutually exclusive, especially given the existence of synergy feats like Felling Smash or Bull Rush Strike. Even without those, building to be good at one maneuver does not in any way detract from your damage output. As I said before, with the exception of Power Attack/Deadly Aim, martial damage largely comes from class features and items.

Also, the nice thing about being a tripper is that you can deny multiple opponents their move action (reach weapon + chokepoint), not just one. But while tripping multiple targets is very effective, spreading regular damage out among multiple targets is much less likely to impede them due to how hitpoints work.

[upho]

I'm still not grasping how a character built to deny an opponent's move action every round is somehow less of a one-trick pony than a character that's built to kill whatever he is aimed at in one hit every round.Here's a little thought experiment to make it easier to grasp: Imagine you have two different high level fighters facing a much higher CR enemy. The first fighter is a classic damage dealer. He'll likely be able to reduce the enemy to less than half of its HP in one full attack but is also left very exposed to its deadly retaliation. The second fighter is a dirty trick specialist. He spends one of his attacks in his full attack to perform a dirty trick, which has a good chance of for example rendering the enemy blind, while probably dealing nearly as much damage since the now debuffed enemy is easier to hit. He's also effectively decreased the deadliness of the enemy's retaliation, increasing his and his party's chances of survival. In addition, his debuff has made the enemy easier to kill for other party members, often resulting in a higher net party DPR increase than if he had spent his resources as the former classic damage dealing fighter.

So of course dirty trick isn't very good vs. enemies you can one-shot easily. But vs. all the tougher ones, it's typically damn effective. And since the trade-off in terms of actual average damage output is typically small (or is a gain from a party-wide perspective), being a dirty trick specialist typically does not make you more of a one-trick pony than the damage dealer. Rather the opposite. That said, it's certainly easier to build for pure DPR, and which build type is actually the best will of course vary depending on party composition, campaign, play style etc.

[upho]

I'm still not grasping why you think these are mutually exclusive, especially given the existence of synergy feats like Felling Smash or Bull Rush Strike. Even without those, building to be good at one maneuver does not in any way detract from your damage output. As I said before, with the exception of Power Attack/Deadly Aim, martial damage largely comes from class features and items.Yeah. It can even increase your (and especially your party's) average damage output. Stuff like the extra AoOs generated from Punishing Kick, Greater Trip/Drag, Wolf Trip etc adds up to a LOT of extra damage, especially since those extra attacks are made at full bab and typically with a big two-handed weapon against debuffed (prone, blinded, shaken, whatever) enemies.


Also, the nice thing about being a tripper is that you can deny multiple opponents their move action (reach weapon + chokepoint), not just one. But while tripping multiple targets is very effective, spreading regular damage out among multiple targets is much less likely to impede them due to how hitpoints work.Can be a pretty awesome "You Shall Not PASS!", especially when equipped with something like a Dragoncatch Guisarme to trip winged flyers as well. One full attack trips three enemies and piles one or two AoO's on top of them while they're prone (plus additional AoO's from nearby allies)! :smalltongue:

[Doctor Awkward]

I'm still not grasping why you think these are mutually exclusive...


*inhale* Hmmm....

Hoo... kay.

A Human Paladin with 15 PB, starting with 16 Str and 14 Cha, with Fate's Favored (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/faith-traits/fate-s-favored) and Magical Knack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-knack)
Human. <Whatever...>
1st. Mounted Combat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/mounted-combat-combat---final)
3rd. Ride-by-Attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/ride-by-attack-combat---final)
5th. Spirited Charge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spirited-charge-combat---final)
7th. Power Attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat---final)
9th. Furious Focus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/furious-focus-combat)

At level 10, with a +4 Belt, when Smiting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin#TOC-Smite-Evil-Su-) while buffed with Saddle Surge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/saddle-surge), and Divine Favor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/divine-favor), and using only a +2 lance you are looking at:
9 PA + 4 Divine Favor (with trait) + 7 Str (2handing a lance with +5 mod) + 10 from smiting + 9 from Saddle Surge + 2 from the lance + 3d8 weapon damage.

That's 54 x3 from Spirited Charge for 162 average damage. Per round.
Oh yeah, and if he hits with Litany of Righteousness (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/litany-of-righteousness) it's x4 for 216. And if he gets really lucky and crits with Litany up it's x6 for 324 average damage.

Since he can ignore PA penalties for that charge, he's looking at +10 BAB +5 Str +2 Charge +2 Cha + 4 luck for a +23 to hit.

Just to make things fair for your fighter, a CR 13 Dwiergeth (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/dwiergeth) has an AC of 28 and 175 HP. With Litany, the paladin has to roll a 5 or higher to end the encounter in a single round. And even if he doesn't he's well across the field and past the point of retaliation when the creature gets a turn. And this is all on his own, without needing the party to spend any time buffing him.

And, oddly enough, I seem to be short on both ability scores and room for feats to improve combat maneuvers.

With a CMD of 43 against trip, your fighter (of 3 levels higher) has to roll a 4 or higher to... do... what?
Take Furious Focus, and spend a full round action to run up to the enemy and PA for 8+7 Str +4 weapon +(screw it, Lucerne hammer) 1d12?
25 damage? 31 at most? 93 if you roll a 20?
And then take the PA penalty on the AoO you get for tripping him? And then hope it doesn't grapple you to death when it stands back up?

Please. Illustrate for me how these two are not mutually exclusive.

[Psyren]

Please. Illustrate for me how these two are not mutually exclusive.

Mounted combat, that's your equivalency attempt? That's a nonstarter - even bringing Paladin into this (which is irrelevant to a thread that is specifically about fighters), mounted combat is every bit as situational as tripping if not moreso. How many dungeons, towers, crypts, ships, etc. have you adventured in with room to bring a horse? Even more open environments, like city streets. mountain passes or forests, can present significant challenges for a mounted build. I would say on average your chances of encountering a ladder the party needs to climb are much higher than encountering a water elemental construct.

And getting back to my earlier point, this thread is about Fighter, not Paladin. A fighter doesn't get an animal companion, and therefore any mount they might obtain is unlikely to survive or be useful past low levels. Even if you attempt to kludge something together with Animal Ally, it's still going to be extremely weak compared to any even-CR challenge, much less above-CR ones that are challenging even for you. Fighters are also very gear-dependent, with little to spare for a mount and no spells or class features to help it address that gap. You are comparing two situations that will almost never be at odds on the same character. And without a mount that can actually survive in combat, at least three of your feat choices become meaningless.

[Sayt]

Also, you can't in practical gameplay that you're going to have a charge line every round.

All too frequently, you're going to be in areas which are too tight to charge, or fit your mount, or if they're expansive enough, too cluttered, and you're assuming you're getting 45 foot charge lines to your enemy, which, again, not guaranteed.

Also, you can't do that all day, you only have 3/day smites at nine.

Also, bringing up a charge-smiting paladin in a conversation about fighters is like going up to people talking about assault rifles and telling them why they're inferior to 152mm artillery pieces.

Edit:

Furthermore, a Human Fighter 9 can get the two feats to get an animal companion, Boon Companion, Mounted Combat, Ride By attack and Spirited charge and power attack, and still has four feats free to put towards Combat maneuvers.

As much raw damage as a charge-smiting paladin with favourable conditions and time to buff? No, but what is? Beastmorph Vivisectionist?

[Doctor Awkward]

Mounted combat, that's your equivalency attempt? That's a nonstarter - even bringing Paladin into this (which is irrelevant to a thread that is specifically about fighters)
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the thread was about martial melee characters and how combat maneuvers are irrelevant.
And I also noticed the part where you explained how your fighter is capable of doing anything remotely resembling effective damage is conspicuously absent.


mounted combat is every bit as situational as tripping
Sure, like those circumstances where the enemy is immune to damage.
...No, wait...


How many dungeons, towers, crypts, ships, etc. have you adventured in with room to bring a horse? Even more open environments, like city streets. mountain passes or forests, can present significant challenges for a mounted build. I would say on average your chances of encountering a ladder the party needs to climb are much higher than encountering a water elemental construct.
Then use a Halfling. You won't even notice the difference in damage.
Play a small angelkin aasimar and your damage goes up.
And nobody ever prepares spiderclimb, right?

I mean, as long as we're relying entirely on the rest of the party to pick up our slack...



And getting back to my earlier point, this thread is about Fighter, not Paladin. A fighter doesn't get an animal companion, and therefore any mount they might obtain is unlikely to survive or be useful past low levels. Even if you attempt to kludge something together with Animal Ally, it's still going to be extremely weak compared to any even-CR challenge, much less above-CR ones that are challenging even for you. Fighters are also very gear-dependent, with little to spare for a mount and no spells or class features to help it address that gap. You are comparing two situations that will almost never be at odds on the same character. And without a mount that can actually survive in combat, at least three of your feat choices become meaningless.

The only correct statement you have made so far in this entire thread is that you and I are debating two completely different situations. You are attempting to justify the practicality of a maneuver specialist by listing specific in-game circumstances where he would make an excellent contribution, while dismissing any countering evidence as infinitesimally probable. I am trying to compare mathematical and statistical probabilities in a vacuum.

In order to have any reasonable basis for comparison you have to judge the two things on the same premise. "Hur, what're the odds of fighting a water elemental construct?" is not a valid response to, "Hey, your concept has problems because there's more than a couple things at every level that you have no hope of affecting."

Maneuvers are inherently unreliable due to the underlying mechanics of the CMB/CMD system being wildly unbalanced, and if a build cannot reasonably stand on it's own, regardless of the circumstances, then it is not an optimal build. At best it is differently viable, and at worst it is a waste of party space.

Your arguments have proven nothing other than a maneuver specialist is a niche build that requires willing allies and/or a campaign tailored specifically to play into its strength in order to be the optimal choice, which is exactly the same thing I have been saying for the last two pages.

/thread

(...for me, at least)

[Psyren]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the thread was about martial melee characters and how combat maneuvers are irrelevant.
And I also noticed the part where you explained how your fighter is capable of doing anything remotely resembling effective damage is conspicuously absent.

Fighter in particular is more drawn to combat maneuvers because (a) they have the lowest opportunity cost as far as feats and (b) they have no real bonus damage mechanic to speak of, save for the minuscule bonus they get from weapon training - a bonus whose to-hit applications prove far more useful (landing later iteratives, maneuvers that benefit the entire party, offsetting Power Attack penalties etc.) What they do not have, is a bonded mount, or smite evil, or saddle surge or any of the other things you listed.



Sure, like those circumstances where the enemy is immune to damage.
...No, wait...

You may not have noticed, but "Spirited Charge" requires you to, well, charge. And "Mounted Combat" requires you to be, well, mounted.
(Is this thing on? :smallwink:)



Then use a Halfling. You won't even notice the difference in damage.
Play a small angelkin aasimar and your damage goes up.
And nobody ever prepares spiderclimb, right?

I mean, as long as we're relying entirely on the rest of the party to pick up our slack...

So now you're stuck with small races to make your concept work, while my own build was race agnostic. Also, spider climb won't work on most mounts (they tend not to have hands.) So even cutting out all the medium races, you're still coming up short (no pun intended.)


The only correct statement you have made so far in this entire thread-

I've made far more than one: first by correcting your maneuver and CR math; second by demonstrating you can in fact invest in a maneuver and still have plenty of feats and wealth left over to optimize damage (and that there is considerable overlap between both approaches), and third by proving you can do it all on the lowly Fighter. And then you've got other folks like upho showing that, yeah, you can blind and bull rush and trip Balors while you're at it, and none of their massive saving throws or SR will help them when the rest of the party takes advantage of your tactical superiority.



/thread

(...for me, at least)

If only :smalltongue:

[Ssalarn]

I'm not trying to be a nancy here, but you really need to slap a build out before just saying that there are several builds that can hit that mark. And yes, 54 is a massive number as as far as I was able to tell a normal fighter can only hit around +34, meaning he needs a nat 20 to succeed,certainly not even close to viable. Of course Barbarians can do a bit better as can rangers but those are generally one off's or extremely limited.

Also, cannot trip a Balor, it can fly, so there's that little bit.


Also, I'm not really fond of Mighty charge as you must be mounted for that to work, and in 99% of games you will not be mounted and you really have to try to make a Cavalier be worth the effort as it's a very underpowered class.

34 isn't the cap for a maneuver, it's like the bare minimum one would expect from a 20th level martial performing a maneuver he specializes in (+20 BAB, +10 STR, +4 Greater XYZ). Most maneuvers are also going to include things like the weapon's enhancement bonus (+5), bonuses from class abilities (anywhere from +4 to +10 depending on whether you're using Weapon Training, Rage, Favored Enemy, etc.), bonuses from buffs like enlarge person (an additional +3), bonuses from related magic items, potentially bonuses from charging... The list goes on.

You can't trip a balor while it's flying, but if you can ground it, or catch it while it's still on the ground, you can trip it. Probably not the best use of your action unless you're dropping it with the first attack in a full attack sequence, but still doable.

I also have a huge issue with your statement that "in 99% of games you will not be mounted". That statement's not even conjecture, it's just straight up nonsense. I run cavaliers and other mounted warriors all the time, and I'm rarely without my mount, basically never without my mount by the levels I'd be fighting a balor. I'm not even talking about playing a small mounted warrior, there's feats like Narrow Frame and items like a hosteling shield to ensure that you've always got your mount available wherever you go. Now, keeping those four-legged bastards alive for an extended period of time...

[Kurald Galain]

And, oddly enough, I seem to be short on both ability scores and room for feats to improve combat maneuvers.

One thing you appear to be missing is that your paladin is already pretty good at combat maneuvers; and if he does want to use maneuvers, he can easily get +4 more by dropping some pocket change on a ioun stone, and replacing Magical Knack by Heirloom weapon (and avoid the OA the enemy gets either with a reach weapon, or with the fact that paladins have excellent defenses). So this again proves the point that full-BAB characters don't need a lot of investment to be pretty good at maneuvers.

Now then. You say that your build ends combat on a five or higher, but you neglect to mention that you have Divine Favor and Smite and Litany up. This means that you (1) require a buff round which the fighter doesn't, (2) can only do it twice per day whereas maneuvers are unlimited, and (3) can only do this on a monster that is specifically weak against paladins.

Yes, the paladin is a strong class, we knew that. But you've just cherry-picked a situation wherein your build is most effective, and in other situations a maneuver-based fighter will be better. And the funny thing is that your paladin is already decent at maneuvers should he choose to use them.

[skypse]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the thread was about martial melee characters and how combat maneuvers are irrelevant.
And I also noticed the part where you explained how your fighter is capable of doing anything remotely resembling effective damage is conspicuously absent. Well you can ignore the fact that the title of the thread has the word "fighter" in it but the thread is about alternative methods of a martial (fighter) character to be relevant in a fight in more than one ways. As I stated in the first post, this is not an optimization contest!


Then use a Halfling. You won't even notice the difference in damage.
Play a small angelkin aasimar and your damage goes up.
And nobody ever prepares spiderclimb, right?
More limitations? Maybe your character should be forced to only use vowels when he talks ingame.



In order to have any reasonable basis for comparison you have to judge the two things on the same premise. That's why I'm comparing a martial class with full class features AND spellcasting to your fighter/barbarian example. Fixed that for you bro!



Maneuvers are inherently unreliable due to the underlying mechanics of the CMB/CMD system being wildly unbalanced, and if a build cannot reasonably stand on it's own, regardless of the circumstances, then it is not an optimal build. At best it is differently viable, and at worst it is a waste of party space. THIS IS NOT AN OPTIMIZATION CONTEST! Also, has it ever occured to you that CMD is so much harder to hit than AC because it can produce greater results than just hit a guy?? After all, a BBEG with 1 hp can still hit as hard as the BBEG with the 900 hp so unless you one-hit KO them, I will take my BBEGs blinded,sickened,nauseated or in whatever hampered state you have them please.



/thread

(...for me, at least)
Now that's constructive argumentation. As the OP, thank you for your contribution sir!




You can't trip a balor while it's flying, but if you can ground it, or catch it while it's still on the ground, you can trip it. Probably not the best use of your action unless you're dropping it with the first attack in a full attack sequence, but still doable. And you can also make called shots on its wings with a -2 with the rest of your attacks so it won't fly soon enough :)

[Necromancy]

I've actually played this in game and not just theory craft

Two weapon invested with sword and board
Shield slam and shield master
2 attacks with offhand, each hit is a FREE bull rush using your shields bonus to hit

Why take this route?

Are you going to bull rush dragons into lava pits? Probably not

Are you going to knock a ton of baddies into your wizards hungry pit? Hell yes

More to the point, you are breaking up mobs of baddies into something more bite sized

You are preventing full attacks

You are able to actually protect your party as a tank